It was supposed to be the group to unite the grass-fed cattle industry, but now Cattle Australia is facing a legal challenge from within.
Paul Wright and Cameron McIntyre, representing Cattle Producers Australia Limited (CPA), have launched legal action against aspects of the Cattle Council of Australia's (CCA) involvement in the development of the new group.
In 2021, a restructure steering committee, funded by the federal government, was set up to address long-running concerns about democracy and representation for the grass-fed cattle industry.
A new peak body, Cattle Australia, was created and a draft constitution was adopted last week in a narrow vote.
But in a statement, Mr Wright, who along with Mr McIntyre was a member of that committee, said the document was not what had been proposed.
"CCA illegitimately took over the reform process in its own interest and produced a flawed and undemocratic structure with no secure funding plan for Cattle Australia," Mr Wright said.
"Unlike the constitution adopted by CCA, the grass-fed cattle producer peak industry council structure proposed by the RSC would have given fair representation for all levy payers, whether big or small.
"We will be instituting legal action aiming to halt the incorrect process and to call out the flawed structure that CCA appears to have devised in its own interests rather than in the interests of all Australia’s grass-fed cattle producer transaction levy payers."
Mr Wright says the challenge is also seeking a complete review of the $500,000 of federal funding invested in the transition process.
'We need to be satisfied that we have done all in our power to discharge our responsibilities to the industry and to the government in terms of the funding," he said.
"That's what we were entrusted to do and that's what we have tried to do but that has not happened.
"We feel that's a real betrayal of levy payers."
He says the action is in response to complaints from graziers dissatisfied with the process.
"Every levy payer who has called me has considered it despicable; but most importantly it's a terrible, terrible shame," he said.
"They have accurately assessed the situation as a rebadging of Cattle Council; it's going back to what we had.
"It is not addressing the fundamental issues that the industry required."
Vote criticised
The new peak body would allow individual members who were previously only able to be represented by a state farming organisation to participate in board elections and have their say on issues for the first time.
But Mr McIntyre said the vote on the constitution demonstrated the lack of representation.
"At that CCA Special General Meeting held to adopt the new Constitution, there were around 45 CCA members online, 71 proxies and the CCA President — a total of 117 people," he said.
"A total of 117 CCA members voted in favour of adopting a CCA devised Constitution for all of us, all the 45,000 plus grass-fed cattle producers of Australia.
"This is not only bad; it is sad."
The pair have instructed their lawyer, Dan Creevey from Creevey Horrell Lawyers, to list the matter for an urgent hearing at the Supreme Court of Queensland.
"The new rebadged constitution has not yet been agreed upon by the RSC, which was established to do just that," Mr Creevey said.
"The draft constitution that has been adopted fails to encapsulate the requirements of the democratically elected Cattle Australia structure demanded by our clients and other cattle producers."
Constitution will be defended
Responding to the action, Victorian grazier and director of the Cattle Council of Australia Peter Star said it was a frustrating development.
"The proposed constitution was developed by all parts of the industry, not just the Cattle Council of Australia or CPA, and included significant elements proposed by CPA," he said.
"It's a constitution for all of the industry and, while not perfect, CCA had to find middle ground."
He acknowledged the final document did include alterations from the original proposed, which he said was to make it "fit for purpose".
"The reality is that what a lot of people have been advocating for, to have the democratic process to vote for the board members ... that has not changed," he said.
He said the constitution and the vote would be defended.
"We're hopeful that the legal action doesn't proceed," he said.
"We protect and value our stakeholder interests and we're not intent on wasting our resources but, yes, we do have the finances to deal with this."
